I think we can all agree that hatcheries have contributed to the demise of our fish runs in some way, but this isn't how.

Wouldn't it be more of the other way around? The native smolts in the system gorging themselves on a huge flood of thousands of recently released hatchery fish? As I see it, native Coho and Steelhead are in the river the longest during their smolting period, other salmon pretty much head for the salt as soon as they emerge and can swim. As we have recently discussed, some native steelhead parr stay in the rivers for two years before heading to salt.

So what fish do you think could eat more babies? Hatchery fish that are in the system for a week on their way out, or native coho and steelhead smolts that are living in the system for up to two years, and probably pretty hungry?

I also question the smolt-eating prowess of hatchery fish. These guys have been packed in pens eating Purina Trout Chow for a year. Now when they are released they go downriver hunting down and preying on wild chinook smolts?

Remember WT and TU did not support the BAN initiative either. Apparently their studies showed that nets actually enhance fishing opportunities.

I'd like to see WT bring back native chinook and steelhead to the Cowlitz.

In short, I think it's a joke. It's obvious their goal is to shut down all hatcheries. It's too bad they couldn't conduct some REAL research to determine the TRUE impacts hatcheries have on wild fish. Instead of this bunch of BS!

It's too bad that these well organized and funded groups can't better use their time, effort, and money for causes that might actually help the fish.

Ike